Where politics, the law and satire sit down and have a pint. And a packet of scampi fries.
Email jonnymacsplace@live.co.uk

Thursday, 19 February 2009

Should Jacqui Smith be disappointed about Abu Qatada?

In the car today, Red Harriet - occasional blogger at JMP and glamorous siren - became annoyed at Radio 4 reporting that Jacqui Smith was 'disappointed' by the decision of the European Court to award Abu 'a truly dangerous individual' Qatada £2,500 compensation for his being detained without trial under the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act.

Her annoyance sprang not from the rightness or otherwise of the decision, but rather the appropriateness of the Home Secretary expressing disappointment about it. In her view, it is not right for a politician, let alone a Government Minister, to suggest that a court has got something wrong - unless it is in the appeal court. In her view, a better response would have been along the lines of 'we do not share the view that Mr Qatada should be awarded compensation, but we respect the court's decision'.

I don't share this view. I don't understand it all as regards the European Court, where the British government has no meaningful power over it. As regards British courts, the separation of powers means, I think, that it is not improper for the government to say that it thinks a court's decision is wrong, even that it is 'scandalous' (as the Conservatives described today's decision). What is clearly wrong, in my view, is where politicians attack individual judges, as with the vile David Blunkett, whose shameful bullying was apparently the cause of Lord Woolf's early retirement as Lord Chief Justice. That risks being seen as attempted interference with justice by the executive.

Incidentally, while it may be good politics, it is almost always stupid in legal and logical terms for politicians to attack the court's decision. The courts very rarely apply the law wrongly. The correct subject of the attack is normally the law itself. But, of course, that is nominally within the power of the government to change, so it is much easier to attack the judgment than the statute it applies.

PS If you want to read a cretinous, disingenuous, extraordinarily ill-informed and almost parodically hand-wringingly liberal discussion of the decision finally to deport Qatada, feel free to head over to Victoria Brittain's recent piece on CiF. It's all about 'casual racism', you know. FFS.